About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 13
CNNW 10
FBC 4
CNBC 3
CSPAN 3
MSNBC 3
CNN 1
LANGUAGE
English 46
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46 (some duplicates have been removed)
spending in order to reduce trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that is now mind-boggling league not -- monotonous. house minority leader disagrees vehemently with the speaker on how to reduce deficits and debt. today she offered a paradoxical statement on fiscal policy that would make both casey stiegel and yogi berra proud. the nation now just 24 days away from $600 billion of spending cuts and tax increases that will automatically kicked in. and pelosi has some wise words for washington. please listen terror. >> this is a moment of truth. the clock is ticking. christmas is coming. the goose is getting fat. in many homes across america it is very, very lean times. you cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. lou: that's right. pelosi says we cannot get our way to deficit reduction. listen to the top democrat in the house of representatives, the former speaker of the house unveiling -- on dealing with the fiscal crisis one more time. >> in many homes across america ad is a very, very lean time. you cannot cut your way to deficit reduction. lou: today said minority leader appear
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.ç so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
at all of these programs, are they even going to reduce the deficit? if they have the combined affect of slowing down the economy, the deficit reduction doesn't take place. they have to be more pro active and they have to get aggressive. but none of these guys understand economics. you are talking about a bunch of lawyers. you are talking about a bunch of people that study political science. you don't have anybody in congress that understands economic and they are following poor economic history and applying the same medicine. >> i am only one man. i can't save the world. this super hero is looking at me. again drawing exactly to scale. this just in, an urgent bull law -- bulletin coming in. i am getting results as i speak. you don't think i could perform heroic feats? right this second news from the united states senate that they are moving right now. right now. let me quote -- okay it is not on the stuff i just talked about. apparently harry reid is trying to move heaven and earth for a waiver to allow food in the congressional auditorium. let may get this straight. let me get this
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
the deficit we have. the truth is, if you want to balance the budget, which i do, you have to have increased revenues and you have significant spending cuts. and you have said many times on this program that raising taxes on rich people is not enough to deal with the deficit. you are right. the truth is, the best thing we could do is go over the fiscal cliff. we have the same tax rates that we have when bill clinton was president. significant cuts in defense and also significant human services can you tell us. >> katie, let me ask you, before you respond to what governor dean is saying. there is logic to what howard dean is saying. i don't happen to agree with it. but i know where he's coming from. katie, let me ask you this -- katie can't hear me. we'll wait for her to get back hooked in. howard, what about the notion that i'm posing tonight -- i've said this a few times -- republicans better be careful. they're not going down your road and the democrats aren't going down your road. you have middle class tax cuts for the democrats and it sometimes sounds to me as an old reagan conservative
that certainty to the middle class. then we can work in earnest together to reduce the deficit in a balanced way that will make sure we don't first throw the middle class under the bus. that whatever we put forward have spending cuts and revenue that is going to take care of the middle class and make sure that we have spending cuts and revenue that ensures that they're fair and that the math works. there has been no evidence thus far that the republicans are interested in doing that. >> this has been the perfect opportunity for them to step forward and show some leadership. the majority of americans do want this right now. congresswoman, the president has asked you to stay on as d next c chair. what is the way forward for the democrats? what's happening here? >> well, we need to continue to focus on rebuilding our economy from the middle class out. president obama talked eloquently and passionately during the campaign about making sure that we can get a handle on this deficit, that we can rebuild our economy from the middle class out, that we can focus on creating jobs and getting the economy tu
the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. and if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he has an obligation to families and small businesses, to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> speaker, you spoke with the president earlier this week. can you characterize this call? if he called, did he have any kind of counteroffer? and also, we understand that he's just making clear that it's got to be increase in rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit, maybe just not all the way to 39.6? >> it was -- the phone call was pleasant but was just more of the same. the conversation that the staff had yesterday, just more of the same. it's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counteroffer. >> mr. speaker, the jobs report today indicated unemployment is down roug
in washington negotiate a bad deal on the bucket and deficit, what do you think will happen to medicare and medicaid benefits. >> it stars two senator and two republican reps. cnn reports the labor unions are spending more than a half of million dollars on this round of spots. we're back with more steph after the break. stay with us. ♪ going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [♪ theme music ♪] >> stephanie: okay. and as we mentioned, unemployment numbers. hello! [ ♪ patriotic music ♪ ] >> stephanie: the lowest in four years. >> wow! >> stephanie: it has dropped to 7.7%. >> you're welcome america, i did that. >> no, you didn't. >> stephanie: right. [ applause
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for all our coverage of the fiscal cliff talks. we have a web
thought you should take a look. it totals $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. the part that stood out to us was $600 billion in proposed savings in medicare reforms. how? in part by raising the age of eligibility to 65 to maybe 67. turning down the gop proposal, dan pfieffer said, quote, it provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which medicare savings they would achieve." let's head now to the white house and dan lothian. the white house will not offer a counter proposal, right? what's going on here? >> reporter: well, you know, i think the white house is digging in. the president said early on in this process that he would only sit down and really move forward, negotiate on this in any meaningful way if the tax hikes for the wealthy expired. and republicans have been pushing back on that -- tax breaks rather for the wealthy expired and republicans have been pushing back on that, say they go believe that will be harmful for the economic recovery because wealthy americans are the ones who are creating the jobs and
the illusion that deficits can be reduced without getting more revenues. you saw this--this has been there sort of article of faith for many years and it has been the republican orthodoxy back in 2011 when arguing with the debt ceiling and spending cuts and nothing about increased revenues, and boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted. when romney was running for office, there was not a peep until the end of the campaign. he was basically saying we could have a balanced budget amendment. we could cap spending and cut it. so their own colleagues have not told them these last many years that in order to reduce the deficit, you need more revenues, whether that comes from higher rates or higher taxes or getting rid of deductions. so when one of their own says it, it's a shock to the system. >> jennifer: yes, for sure. kerry, do you think that the tea party is going to be able to kill the plan before it gets started? >> you know, it's really the struggle that is going on right now. the speaker put out this plan yesterday that clearly you know is a reversal from where he was at least publicly over t
the deficit and putts on a path to long-term stability. what i need, what the country needs what the business community needs in order to get to where we need to be is an acknowledgement that folks like me can afford to pay a little bit higher rate you if we combine that with a tax reform process and entitlement reform. then we can get a $4 trillion deficit reduction package. >> you can begin to see, if you take $400 billion in deductions, combine that with a partial increase in the top rate, remember, the president proposed to get about $1 trillion from raising the top rate to 396, you can see how some of the elements of a revenue package come together. one other note from that interview, tyler and sue, was that the president was asked will you bring a big business executive into your cabinet? he said i would love to. i'm in constant conversation. one of the challenges, though, is the confirmation process, which is difficult and forbidding for a lot of those business executives to go through. >>> it is, indeed, john. from what you heard from the president today, do you sense that they are in
to deficit reduction that can help give businesses certainty and make sure the country grows. and unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. he talks, for example, about $800 billion worth of revenues, but he says he's going to do that by lowering rates. when you look at math, it doesn't work. >> reporter: so unbalanced approach is the white house's nice way of saying you got to be kidding me. jay carney used the phrase in the briefing just now that the proposal from the republicans was a bunch of magic needs and fairy dust and the current standoff is continuing with neither side talking today, brooke. >> magic beans, fairy dust, la la land, it is laughable but not. it is serious stuff that affects every one of us come january 1st, 28 days to go. we know some of the reporting from dana bash on the hill, there are no formal talks going on. the president insists in speaking in this bloomberg interview, he does speak to speaker boehner all the time that the meetings are not what matter. what have you, jessica yellin what have you learned in your repo
. gretchen just said it is not a tax problem it is the way they waste our money. jay carny said deficit reduction is not the goal. are you kidding? here he is. >> deficit reduction is not the goal here. the reason to get our fiscal house in order and the reason to pass a deficit reduction package that is balanced and allows for economic growth is to put our economy on a sustainable fiscal path which again, in itself produces positive economic benefits and revenues are part of it this. the president put forth and entitlement reforms and savings gleaned from our health care entitlement programs need to be a part of it. the president has been specific about that. >> brian: he's talking about generalitiys about unnamed cuts. jay carny goes on to admit if the president's proposal went to the democratically controlled senate it would not last. 92 where is the leadership. >> brian: running 1.1 trillion. they are unable to pass a budget for the last three years and you probably think that the fiscal cliff would not address these things. >> gretchen: don't you recall that the president said he h
think he'd disagree. >> the co-chair of obama's deficit commission, but yesterday mr. bowles flatly rejected that connection. meanwhile, the white house is turning to campaign style messaging as a reminder of whose tax plan was chosen in the court of public opinion on election day. >> under my plan, first of all, 98% of folks who make less than 250,000, you wouldn't see your income taxes go up a single dime. all right? because you're the ones who need relief. but we're not going to be able to get it done unless we also ask the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on their income officials $250,000. the same rate we had when bill clinton was president and our economy kree aed nearly 23 million new jobs. >> and there are reports that republicans are considering a doomsday plan should talks break down. according to senior republican sources the gop would allow a vote on extending bush tax cuts for the middle class and nothing more. under one variation of this plan, house republicans would vote present on the bill to voice their disapproval but still allowing it to pass entirely on
% of the budget. and you're leaving the parts of the budget that blow a hole in the deficit and destroy this economy over the next 20 years. >> by the way, we won't go over the cliff for all the reasons we're talking about. even if we do, my friends on the street tell me, it's not a disaster. it's baked in. because we're going to get it done even after the fact. so you're talking about a few points in the market. >>> we're just moments away, joe and i will be removing -- >> oh, no! there it is! >> ow! >> it's all for a great cause. >> i don't know if it's that good. >> i don't know. is this going to be good television or kind of yucky? okay. we'll be right back. americans are always ready to work hard for a better future. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ ♪
-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington has got a spending problem not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal i believe that he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we are ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week, can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of counter offer? also, we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase in rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit maybe not all the way to 39.6? >> the phone call was pleasant, just more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday, just more of the same. it's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counter offer. >> the jobs report today indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. a lot of folks in the business community say if no deal is going to happen it could obviously hurt american job
our deficit situation as the economy grows. without raising any taxes. but the fact of the matter is i know the gentleman has historically not felt tax cuts should be paid for either by reducing it or offsetting. the president doesn't agree with the $800 billion because he doesn't think the math works. i share the president's view. the math doesn't work. the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the onive -- objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70% debt to g.d.p. ratio which most economists or a little less than that is sustainable or is on a sustainable path. if we all agree with the objective and then, mr. majority leader, simply make the math work to get there on a way that we could agree on, i think america would be advantaged, the economy would be advantaged and we'd see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000's. and i'll be glad to yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i accept the gentleman's good intentions. i know he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on the american people to pay more of their money int
have a looming budget deficit. so you don't have to really be a rocket scientist to understand that the rich do have to pay more. taxes do have to be raised on the rich and i think that's why over 60% of the public in these polls are not only supportive of a tax increase on the rich, but also will blame the republicans if we go over the fiscal cliff. and this gives frankly, this gives the white house and this gives the obama administration much more bargaining leverage. >> grover norquist, here's the problem, it seems to me. again, as long as the posturing goes on with fairly ridiculous offers on both sides and lots of political rhetoric along the lines of well, they're not giving an inch, we're going backwards, you can't really go backwards from a position of complete standstill, as far as i'm concerned. as this goes on, the american economy stalls, wall street's nervous, the consumers that should be out there now buying lots of christmas presents and boosting the economy will be reticent because they'll be thinking hang on, what's going to happen come the end of the year, am
/unquote reduce the deficit which is what we're being asked to do. so if you ask -- if you ask people if they raise taxes will they just spend it? most americans think they'll just spend it. if you raise taxes on the rich, do you think they'll also raise taxes on the middle class? most americans think that's true as well. you have to take the question several levels. the american people understand if you tax the rich, be the democrats haven't finished the sentence. tax the rich first. obama, if he got his taxes on the rich, is still $8 trillion short over the next decade. that's where the energy taxes he's going to present and the value added tax that ultimately turns us into a european welfare state only of that can pay for obama's sized government. >> wow. grover, unfortunately we have to leave it there. our discussion of unicorns will continue, i'm sure, at least up until december 31st. thank you for joining us today as always. >> you got it. >> after the break, offer ver ses counteroffer. we will break both down with ezra klein when he joins us next on "now." i gave birth to my da
and what's happening in britain and spain and elsewhere, they have embarked upon deficit reduction. and what that has done is contract their economies when they still have very high unemployment, very high under utilization of a lot of resources that. means that their ratio of their debts to their total economies keeps on getting worse. if you want that kind of economy, that kind of austerity economics, well then what you want to do is raise taxes on the middle class and also cut government spending. if you don't you don't go that way. and casey, with all due respect, there are three people looking for jobs for every job opening these days. i don't see how you can say that they're being paid for not getting jobs. >> casey, why don't we put some incentives into this economy? why don't we make it pay to work after taxes? why don't we make it pay more to invest after tax? while we're doing that, casey, why don't we shrink the size and scope of government so that the private sector can keep its own resources and spend up more wisely than the government will? >> well, you're asking me t
by more if you are going to deal with the deficit. >> that's what you are saying or taxes on the middle class have to go up at some point. i am not sure. you say you counted whether republicans would vote for it. i am not sure that's accept am in the democratic caucus. >> if it's acceptable to obama, it will pass the senate. no one has to worry about that. if it's acceptable -- if john boehner and barack obama cut a deal, it will pass the senate and the house no matter what nancy pelosi wants. >> i disagree with that. >> we have agreed so far on almost everything so. >> not here to necessarily agree. >> not 95, '96, gingrich who could dictate. if john boehner did which was walk into the caucus and say accept this or i am leaving, they will say bye. same thing with obama. the democratic caucus thinks they have the leverage >> bill: 20 minutes. here stan collender lendcollender. i am going to ask you about apple announcing that they are going to have a whole new line of computer manufacturing in the united states and what that means leading up to the job
a balanced plan with detail object how to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion to put us in a sustainable fiscal path. that's out there. speaker boehner has put out some things he wants, but there has to be frank discussions. whatever deal there is has to come up for a vote in the congress. that's when you have a debate over the contours of any plan. i think senator sessions is trying to cause a little mischief there. >> so a lot of democrats are saying that no big deal if you go over the fiscal cliff. it seems like republicans are moving towards giving in on the tax rates. might even just vote on the tax portion of the negotiations and kick the rest into january to deal with. if you get a deal on the taxes that president obama seems like he would sign, what happens to the government on the second half of the cliff, the sequester and other extenders? you were at omb. can the government deal with that? can we be okay? >> there's a lot of ifs. republicans don't want to raise taxes on the middle class. they want to pass a bill to prevent increase on rates on the middle class. that would be a good t
had you are plus and the deficit would have been eliminated as we sit here today what changed that was the republican president and congress. what put us on the path we are on now is not democrats. we would have no collective debt at all if we had left in place the clinton budgetary strategy. megyn: what do you make of that quote. >> what i'm responding to is i think what we are dealing with is a tell poar a temporal thing. it would drive the markets down and create say could and uncertainty. the president is saying we can't go through that again. megyn: he's wanting not only to raise it but to have uniform authority to raise. a fewer years ago they were saying that was a failure of leadership. >> he may not get it but he's right to argue that way the republicans have been doing this has been irresponsible. let's get this done in the way our democracy has worked the for hundreds of years. not this new extraordinary thing. i think he's right to put pressure on the republicans. megyn: i thought it was the democrats trying to make this part of the deal to head off -- to stop us f
that actually reduces our deficit. i'm willing to work with anyone to put a plan on the table, but we're not willing to negotiate with someone who hasn't put a plan on the table. the president has not put a serious plan on the table. >> as far as a compromise on the marginal tax rate 35% going up let's say 36% or 37%, is that acceptable? >> no. no. because marginal tax rate increases if there is any increase in revenue, just gives them more to play with on capitol hill and more to spend. when we talk about fairness, when the top 2%, the $250,000 and above are already paying 45% of total income tax, that's a big question of fairness there too. >> who should nicki haley name to replace you? >> i talk today her today. i share the same philosophy, the conservative philosophy. i told her i trust her decision and i'm not going to push her one way or another. >> a lot of speculation, congressman scott? >> he's a wonderful person. our whole delegation is really strong. she's got a tough choice, but i'm convinced she'll give me someone as good or better than i am i can pass the torch to. and i
. what i heard you say, this deficit reduction, the economic questions, part of what i'm interested in, post '08 the conservative voices that emerge were the limbaughs and the glenn beck rather than elected leaders. what i'm wondering, is there a way in which elected republicans might help to move conservatism towards an actual conservatism as opposed to the social angst that we saw last time? >> i kind of reject the premise of the post '08. the most interesting development post '08 was something that you could not have predicted at this stage four years ago to the day, which is the rise of a pop list anti-government spending wing of the country and of the electorate. not anti-tax, anti-government spending. the tea party. you did get new voices talking in a different way. rand paul is not talking in the same way that a rick santorum or a newt gingrich has talked about. marco rubio doesn't talk. mike lee, there's a lot of different people who talk differently here. one question, chris christie is another. this class of 2010. that is an interesting wing. it's unclear whether that wing, i
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46 (some duplicates have been removed)